Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-05-26

~hiah Town, held by Mary A. Vande0riI
!, W. w NJ Were purchased by dideon n, HIN
lion hsS h zotn at Slll, 90 per share. obIe,
4 sIack to Mr.. Hukill and M on N, ~
q asKeu for an order OF tha ~,
cVnnrming the sale, directing the trnnss.
~, y, ene slock to Mr.. Hukill, and AUDITORIUM
.ne sheriff to apply the p.oceeds 81 M h 4,
d tne execution and liens against All
!. ras, os, "a inc order OF their priority, and
4 pny over the balance, II any, 70 Mrs. Wand,
srln' Ehe order was granted.
a NO business Of import being brop,ht -,
eontt, AZ ll.5O o'clock, adjourned i,nt,i I
y O'Clock Monday morning. '
AT the opening OF the superior oo,,
londay tho chief Justice apnounca
.nh. the court had decided 10 refnse m
, nlouon Tor n nonsuit, made bv comma
Ior the defence in the case of Pbilin n
hhn Emma A. CLARK vs.. Henry L. ObnrcL
man. The special Jurors Summoned 4
wy the case of Thomas RYAN Va ~
wilmington & Northern Railroad oon,
pany were discharged until Monda,
morning next, when the trial will hs con;
menced. This is an action FOR da,oa os
lhe plaintiff having been an engineer q,
W. q N. engine, which upset nearl,
wv years ago on side-track near Oh.
hopaeil Gar Wheel Company's worka
soalding him terribly. Defective con
s.fnetion Of tho track ia alleged as h,
oasis Tor the claim for damages.
Mr; higgins opened for tho defence in
une oiark 'Ohurchman case. He said Mr.
ohurehman has been the owner OF tbf
properly on which he resides since 1859
ahu y was OF vital Importance TO him 10
keep nus land clear Of the water. md n
protect his bank. The waters of Whit
Ohy creek constitute the great peril Ia
nus property, and Mr.. ClarR's bank was
OF a very flimsy and light character, The
pank broke in 1884 and DESTROYED tba
grass on both farms. Mr.. Ohurobman
lost considerable by this food
and while Mr.. Oiark's bank was
Deing repaired. On February 10th. 1885
there was another break and nnotbar
Hood, but Mr.. Ohurchman waited In vain
Tor the break to be repaired. Then he
was compelled to help himself, and made
contract with the American Dredging
company TO construct return bank to
protect him from the waters of the White
olay creek. In this work he expended
| S5,6UO for his own protection. and not
with any intention of injuring the Clark
farm. For the protection of this bank IL
was necessary that the tide ebould
rise and fall against it, and hence il was
that the Christiana bank was cut to admit
the tide-water into the ditch NJ tbe base
of the new bank, from which the dirt
from the bank was taken.
Henry Il. Ohurchman, the defendant.
wns hist called to the stand, and said he
mad lived ON his farm since 1860. He
built a new bank in 1861, and thereby
secured about 20 acres of land that had
formerly been part of the bed of the
creek. He described the two floods
alluded to by Mr.. Higgins, when the
CLARK bank broke, and the loss he there.
by sustained. His land continuing under
water from the breaks, he, after consulta-
ton with counsel, contracted with the
American Dredging Company, in April,
1860, for return bank, IL feet wide al
the base, feet wide ut the top, and 10
feet high. He built this bank to
protect himself from the water
flowing from the break in the Clark bank.
which rendered It necessary. He maid
the dredging company 80 600 for the
bank and dressed it himself. The bank
would not have been necessary had the
bank ON the CLARK farm been kept in
proper condition. The return bank was
constructed entirely on his own land.
HIS experience having proved that banks
are useless unless the tide Gibbs and flows
against their base, he opened the Chris
tlhna bank to let the Underwater into the
ditch ut the base of the return bank. He
knew the Clark farm was heavily
mortgaged and therefore did not expect
that Mrs. CLARK would put up the bank,
or that he could recover any damage from
her for the negligence therefore he de.
cided to protect himself by erecting his
return bank. He denied that he Ind ever
made any effort TO get possession Of the |
farm, or TINT he had told Bordham, Mrs.
olark's tenant, that he had better move
OF the farm.
MIR. Churchman'S direct testimony
lasted until nearly l o'clock, and pend |
ing his CROSS examination, court adjourned |
until 3 O'Clock, p. m.
The cross examination of Henry l.. |
Churchman VIVA resumed in superior
court in the afternoon in the trial OF |
the case brought against him by Philip
IL. and Emma A. Clark. He insisted that
ia6 byqi.a GA ilo Giar& dafsa aus esttitWi,s
to protect his farm from inun-
Ilation, and that lie WAS compelled TO con
ltruct his own bank for elf-protsction.
William Beck, a farmer residing be-
tween Delaware City and Port Penn, with
marsh farming experience in this country
md England, and a manager in the St
jeorge's Marsh Company since 1861, gave
1 as his opinion that a bank to which tide
water had not access was not as strong as
me washed by the tides. The dry bank
q likely to break, moulder and become
William y. Lawrence, from the same
marsh land owner and
'lso manager of the 81. Georges Marsh
company, gave a like opinion in regard
o the construction of banks.
Franklin Il. Cotton said that Mr.. |
]hurchman consulted with him about his
eturn bank, and he advised that the
,ank be constructed 30 as to have tide
water rising and falling at the base. His
experience was that return bank con- I
tructed in this manner is much better ,
han dry bank. Churchman'S bank was
ne that required water to keep it COM
,act and strong. A dry bank there would /
ave TO be rs TO 80 feet wide Mt the base
o Withstand any considerable flood. He /
lso testified to examining Mrs. Clark's i
,ank, in 1885, aud finding it so badly | i
practically worthless. liz
Thomas j. Hanna, residing near New {
,0rt, about three. quarters OF mile from {
he CLARK and Ohurchman farms, had Z
of these properties for about 0
70 years. He remembered the food OF Sep i
ember, 1884 and visited the farms after the
Iood, finding the grass on the meadows {
.illed. He also noticed Olnrk's bank and 4
lid not think it was in good condition, /
,eing marrow at the top and considerably i
'roken. i
Henry L. Ohur5hman, DR., son Of the /
efendant oorroborated the testimony of i
lis father in relation to the floods of 1884 {
nd 1885, when the water came in through {
he breaches in the Clark bank. i
Pending the examination of this wit d
ess court, at 6 o'clock, adjourned until
o'clock Tuesday morning. {
The examination of Henry Il. Church il
IAN, Jr., for the defence in the Clark il
Jhurohman case, was resumed in superior v
ourt Tuesday morning. He said the CLARK i
ank was 80 bad, in places, early in 1885, q
hat IL could not be walked upon. He
yas sent by his father TO ask when the Il
ank would be repaired and Curtis CLARK a
aid when the weather was fit. Witness l.
aid he thought the weather was tit then il
ut Mr.. CLARK only made short answer I
nd drove of. q
William Edmondson, DR., said no Ind y
and trapped over the marshes of '
40 CLARK and Ohurchman farms, and that n
40 Clark bank was badly washed and i
rokeE.
Joseph GARRISON, colored, living near /
hristiana, had worked on both the Clark i
nd Ohurchman farms. He described tho il
Gods of 1884 and the character of the